Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 481

control, N = 241

treatment, N = 241

p-value2

age

48

51.05 ± 12.71 (25 - 74)

50.67 ± 13.25 (25 - 74)

51.44 ± 12.43 (32 - 72)

0.837

gender

48

0.365

f

31 (65%)

14 (58%)

17 (71%)

m

17 (35%)

10 (42%)

7 (29%)

occupation

48

0.971

day_training

1 (2.1%)

1 (4.2%)

0 (0%)

full_time

5 (10%)

3 (12%)

2 (8.3%)

homemaker

4 (8.3%)

2 (8.3%)

2 (8.3%)

other

2 (4.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (8.3%)

part_time

9 (19%)

5 (21%)

4 (17%)

retired

13 (27%)

6 (25%)

7 (29%)

self_employ

2 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

t_and_e

2 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

unemploy

10 (21%)

5 (21%)

5 (21%)

marital

48

0.891

divore

5 (10%)

3 (12%)

2 (8.3%)

married

10 (21%)

4 (17%)

6 (25%)

none

27 (56%)

14 (58%)

13 (54%)

seperation

3 (6.2%)

2 (8.3%)

1 (4.2%)

widow

3 (6.2%)

1 (4.2%)

2 (8.3%)

edu

48

0.846

bachelor

14 (29%)

6 (25%)

8 (33%)

diploma

7 (15%)

5 (21%)

2 (8.3%)

hd_ad

2 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

postgraduate

4 (8.3%)

2 (8.3%)

2 (8.3%)

primary

4 (8.3%)

1 (4.2%)

3 (12%)

secondary_1_3

4 (8.3%)

2 (8.3%)

2 (8.3%)

secondary_4_5

12 (25%)

7 (29%)

5 (21%)

secondary_6_7

1 (2.1%)

0 (0%)

1 (4.2%)

fam_income

48

0.724

10001_12000

3 (6.2%)

1 (4.2%)

2 (8.3%)

12001_14000

2 (4.2%)

2 (8.3%)

0 (0%)

14001_16000

5 (10%)

2 (8.3%)

3 (12%)

16001_18000

2 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

18001_20000

2 (4.2%)

2 (8.3%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

9 (19%)

6 (25%)

3 (12%)

2001_4000

5 (10%)

2 (8.3%)

3 (12%)

4001_6000

7 (15%)

3 (12%)

4 (17%)

6001_8000

5 (10%)

3 (12%)

2 (8.3%)

8001_10000

4 (8.3%)

1 (4.2%)

3 (12%)

below_2000

4 (8.3%)

1 (4.2%)

3 (12%)

medication

48

40 (83%)

20 (83%)

20 (83%)

>0.999

onset_duration

48

15.71 ± 12.41 (0 - 56)

17.12 ± 14.01 (1 - 56)

14.29 ± 10.70 (0 - 35)

0.437

onset_age

48

35.35 ± 12.60 (15 - 62)

33.55 ± 11.34 (16 - 55)

37.14 ± 13.76 (15 - 62)

0.329

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 481

control, N = 241

treatment, N = 241

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

48

3.33 ± 1.28 (1 - 5)

3.25 ± 1.36 (1 - 5)

3.42 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

0.656

recovery_stage_b

48

18.25 ± 2.69 (9 - 23)

18.33 ± 2.90 (9 - 23)

18.17 ± 2.53 (14 - 23)

0.833

ras_confidence

48

30.69 ± 4.60 (19 - 40)

30.25 ± 4.42 (19 - 40)

31.12 ± 4.84 (22 - 39)

0.516

ras_willingness

48

12.29 ± 1.97 (7 - 15)

12.33 ± 1.74 (9 - 15)

12.25 ± 2.21 (7 - 15)

0.885

ras_goal

48

17.67 ± 2.92 (12 - 24)

17.58 ± 2.90 (12 - 23)

17.75 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)

0.846

ras_reliance

48

13.48 ± 3.01 (8 - 20)

13.38 ± 2.72 (8 - 18)

13.58 ± 3.34 (8 - 20)

0.813

ras_domination

48

10.17 ± 2.35 (3 - 15)

10.88 ± 1.73 (8 - 15)

9.46 ± 2.69 (3 - 14)

0.035

symptom

48

29.58 ± 9.87 (14 - 56)

28.50 ± 8.29 (14 - 45)

30.67 ± 11.30 (15 - 56)

0.453

slof_work

48

22.69 ± 4.87 (10 - 30)

23.12 ± 4.61 (15 - 30)

22.25 ± 5.19 (10 - 30)

0.540

slof_relationship

48

25.94 ± 5.86 (11 - 35)

26.25 ± 6.20 (13 - 35)

25.62 ± 5.62 (11 - 35)

0.716

satisfaction

48

20.77 ± 6.72 (5 - 30)

19.54 ± 6.45 (5 - 29)

22.00 ± 6.90 (5 - 30)

0.209

mhc_emotional

48

11.44 ± 3.54 (4 - 18)

11.12 ± 3.05 (6 - 17)

11.75 ± 4.00 (4 - 18)

0.546

mhc_social

48

14.83 ± 5.02 (6 - 26)

15.21 ± 5.12 (7 - 26)

14.46 ± 5.00 (6 - 23)

0.610

mhc_psychological

48

22.15 ± 6.11 (6 - 36)

21.67 ± 6.11 (10 - 33)

22.62 ± 6.21 (6 - 36)

0.592

resilisnce

48

16.83 ± 4.74 (6 - 25)

16.58 ± 4.74 (6 - 24)

17.08 ± 4.82 (7 - 25)

0.719

social_provision

48

13.67 ± 3.17 (5 - 20)

13.58 ± 2.80 (8 - 20)

13.75 ± 3.57 (5 - 19)

0.858

els_value_living

48

17.04 ± 2.98 (5 - 23)

16.67 ± 2.30 (12 - 20)

17.42 ± 3.55 (5 - 23)

0.389

els_life_fulfill

48

13.04 ± 3.29 (4 - 18)

12.21 ± 3.28 (5 - 17)

13.88 ± 3.14 (4 - 18)

0.079

els

48

30.08 ± 5.66 (9 - 40)

28.88 ± 4.79 (20 - 36)

31.29 ± 6.29 (9 - 40)

0.141

social_connect

48

27.06 ± 9.79 (8 - 48)

26.96 ± 8.78 (8 - 45)

27.17 ± 10.90 (8 - 48)

0.942

shs_agency

48

14.04 ± 4.82 (3 - 20)

13.46 ± 4.55 (3 - 20)

14.62 ± 5.11 (3 - 20)

0.408

shs_pathway

48

16.50 ± 3.88 (4 - 22)

15.96 ± 3.72 (8 - 22)

17.04 ± 4.03 (4 - 22)

0.338

shs

48

30.54 ± 8.10 (7 - 42)

29.42 ± 7.88 (14 - 41)

31.67 ± 8.33 (7 - 42)

0.341

esteem

48

12.50 ± 1.27 (10 - 15)

12.58 ± 1.18 (10 - 14)

12.42 ± 1.38 (10 - 15)

0.655

mlq_search

48

15.08 ± 3.30 (3 - 21)

15.00 ± 3.26 (6 - 21)

15.17 ± 3.41 (3 - 20)

0.863

mlq_presence

48

13.62 ± 3.90 (3 - 21)

13.92 ± 2.98 (6 - 19)

13.33 ± 4.69 (3 - 21)

0.609

mlq

48

28.71 ± 6.57 (6 - 41)

28.92 ± 6.04 (12 - 40)

28.50 ± 7.17 (6 - 41)

0.829

empower

48

19.88 ± 4.34 (6 - 28)

19.75 ± 3.95 (11 - 24)

20.00 ± 4.79 (6 - 28)

0.844

ismi_resistance

48

14.83 ± 2.76 (5 - 20)

14.92 ± 2.30 (12 - 19)

14.75 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)

0.837

ismi_discrimation

48

11.17 ± 3.13 (5 - 19)

11.96 ± 2.84 (5 - 17)

10.38 ± 3.27 (5 - 19)

0.080

sss_affective

48

9.62 ± 4.10 (3 - 18)

10.04 ± 3.30 (3 - 15)

9.21 ± 4.80 (3 - 18)

0.487

sss_behavior

48

9.44 ± 4.24 (3 - 18)

9.96 ± 4.05 (3 - 18)

8.92 ± 4.45 (3 - 18)

0.401

sss_cognitive

48

7.98 ± 3.99 (3 - 18)

7.79 ± 3.74 (3 - 15)

8.17 ± 4.30 (3 - 18)

0.749

sss

48

27.04 ± 11.38 (9 - 54)

27.79 ± 9.57 (9 - 44)

26.29 ± 13.11 (9 - 54)

0.653

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.25

0.245

2.77, 3.73

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.167

0.347

-0.513, 0.846

0.633

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.789

0.403

0.000, 1.58

0.063

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.389

0.557

-1.48, 0.704

0.493

Pseudo R square

0.053

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.3

0.563

17.2, 19.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.167

0.796

-1.73, 1.39

0.835

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.530

0.755

-0.951, 2.01

0.489

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.025

1.044

-2.07, 2.02

0.981

Pseudo R square

0.008

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

30.3

1.016

28.3, 32.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.875

1.436

-1.94, 3.69

0.545

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.77

1.287

-0.749, 4.30

0.181

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.91

1.778

-5.40, 1.57

0.293

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.3

0.398

11.6, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.083

0.563

-1.19, 1.02

0.883

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.600

0.493

-1.57, 0.367

0.237

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.908

0.681

-0.428, 2.24

0.196

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.6

0.637

16.3, 18.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.167

0.900

-1.60, 1.93

0.854

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.415

0.825

-2.03, 1.20

0.619

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.810

1.139

-1.42, 3.04

0.484

Pseudo R square

0.008

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.4

0.601

12.2, 14.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.208

0.849

-1.46, 1.87

0.807

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.058

0.532

-1.10, 0.985

0.914

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.51

0.734

0.068, 2.95

0.054

Pseudo R square

0.037

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.9

0.459

9.97, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.42

0.650

-2.69, -0.143

0.033

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.506

0.758

-1.99, 0.980

0.509

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.75

1.049

-0.304, 3.81

0.105

Pseudo R square

0.074

symptom

(Intercept)

28.5

2.047

24.5, 32.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.17

2.895

-3.51, 7.84

0.458

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.18

1.556

-4.23, 1.87

0.458

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.58

2.146

-5.79, 2.62

0.471

Pseudo R square

0.016

slof_work

(Intercept)

23.1

1.001

21.2, 25.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.875

1.416

-3.65, 1.90

0.539

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.481

0.965

-2.37, 1.41

0.624

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.270

1.331

-2.88, 2.34

0.842

Pseudo R square

0.013

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

26.3

1.208

23.9, 28.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.625

1.709

-3.97, 2.72

0.716

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.31

1.142

-3.55, 0.930

0.265

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.29

1.576

-1.80, 4.38

0.422

Pseudo R square

0.005

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.5

1.406

16.8, 22.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.46

1.989

-1.44, 6.36

0.222

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

3.36

1.841

-0.252, 6.96

0.081

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.81

2.542

-7.80, 2.17

0.280

Pseudo R square

0.038

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.1

0.739

9.68, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.625

1.045

-1.42, 2.67

0.552

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.16

0.810

-0.426, 2.75

0.166

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.65

1.118

-3.85, 0.538

0.154

Pseudo R square

0.013

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.2

1.110

13.0, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.750

1.569

-3.83, 2.33

0.635

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.67

1.351

-0.977, 4.32

0.228

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.00

1.865

-4.66, 2.65

0.595

Pseudo R square

0.019

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.7

1.337

19.0, 24.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.958

1.891

-2.75, 4.66

0.614

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.99

1.586

-1.12, 5.10

0.222

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.97

2.190

-7.26, 1.33

0.188

Pseudo R square

0.011

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.6

0.931

14.8, 18.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.500

1.317

-2.08, 3.08

0.706

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.747

1.122

-1.45, 2.95

0.513

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.458

1.549

-2.58, 3.49

0.771

Pseudo R square

0.015

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.6

0.632

12.3, 14.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.167

0.894

-1.59, 1.92

0.853

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.479

0.704

-1.86, 0.901

0.504

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.57

0.971

-0.338, 3.47

0.122

Pseudo R square

0.025

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.603

15.5, 17.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.750

0.853

-0.923, 2.42

0.383

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.10

0.697

-0.264, 2.47

0.127

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.406

0.962

-2.29, 1.48

0.677

Pseudo R square

0.031

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.2

0.645

10.9, 13.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.67

0.912

-0.120, 3.45

0.073

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.82

0.740

0.371, 3.27

0.022

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.13

1.021

-3.13, 0.868

0.279

Pseudo R square

0.079

els

(Intercept)

28.9

1.138

26.6, 31.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.42

1.609

-0.736, 5.57

0.139

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.88

1.239

0.451, 5.31

0.029

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.51

1.710

-4.86, 1.85

0.388

Pseudo R square

0.063

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.0

1.949

23.1, 30.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.208

2.757

-5.19, 5.61

0.940

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.22

1.507

-1.73, 4.17

0.429

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.585

2.079

-3.49, 4.66

0.782

Pseudo R square

0.006

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.5

0.970

11.6, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.17

1.372

-1.52, 3.86

0.399

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.54

0.982

-0.386, 3.46

0.133

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.576

1.356

-2.08, 3.23

0.675

Pseudo R square

0.050

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.0

0.758

14.5, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.08

1.072

-1.02, 3.18

0.317

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.07

0.755

-0.407, 2.55

0.171

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.122

1.041

-2.16, 1.92

0.908

Pseudo R square

0.035

shs

(Intercept)

29.4

1.606

26.3, 32.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.25

2.272

-2.20, 6.70

0.327

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.51

1.484

-0.398, 5.42

0.106

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.529

2.048

-3.48, 4.54

0.799

Pseudo R square

0.048

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.251

12.1, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.167

0.355

-0.862, 0.528

0.640

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.837

0.462

-0.069, 1.74

0.087

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.303

0.641

-1.56, 0.953

0.642

Pseudo R square

0.070

mlq_search

(Intercept)

15.0

0.672

13.7, 16.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.167

0.950

-1.70, 2.03

0.861

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.03

1.048

-1.02, 3.09

0.332

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.03

1.449

-3.86, 1.81

0.485

Pseudo R square

0.010

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.9

0.774

12.4, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.583

1.095

-2.73, 1.56

0.596

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.31

1.013

-0.674, 3.30

0.208

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.314

1.400

-3.06, 2.43

0.825

Pseudo R square

0.026

mlq

(Intercept)

28.9

1.333

26.3, 31.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.417

1.885

-4.11, 3.28

0.826

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.31

1.860

-1.34, 5.95

0.226

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.33

2.570

-6.36, 3.71

0.610

Pseudo R square

0.018

empower

(Intercept)

19.8

0.865

18.1, 21.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.250

1.223

-2.15, 2.65

0.839

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.701

0.618

-0.511, 1.91

0.271

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.270

0.853

-1.94, 1.40

0.755

Pseudo R square

0.004

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.9

0.533

13.9, 16.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.167

0.754

-1.64, 1.31

0.826

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.772

0.811

-0.819, 2.36

0.350

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.438

1.122

-2.64, 1.76

0.699

Pseudo R square

0.013

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.0

0.634

10.7, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.58

0.897

-3.34, 0.175

0.083

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.59

0.755

-3.08, -0.114

0.045

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.99

1.043

-0.054, 4.03

0.068

Pseudo R square

0.053

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.0

0.827

8.42, 11.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.833

1.169

-3.13, 1.46

0.480

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.570

0.570

-1.69, 0.548

0.331

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.277

0.786

-1.26, 1.82

0.729

Pseudo R square

0.011

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.96

0.843

8.31, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.04

1.192

-3.38, 1.29

0.386

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.51

0.686

-2.85, -0.163

0.041

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.47

0.946

-0.388, 3.32

0.138

Pseudo R square

0.019

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

7.79

0.840

6.15, 9.44

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.375

1.187

-1.95, 2.70

0.753

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.807

0.747

-0.657, 2.27

0.293

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.15

1.030

-3.17, 0.871

0.279

Pseudo R square

0.005

sss

(Intercept)

27.8

2.321

23.2, 32.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.50

3.282

-7.93, 4.93

0.650

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.19

1.521

-4.18, 1.79

0.442

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.563

2.097

-3.55, 4.67

0.791

Pseudo R square

0.005

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.25 (95% CI [2.77, 3.73], t(61) = 13.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.85], t(61) = 0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-3.11e-04, 1.58], t(61) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.60e-04, 1.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.70], t(61) = -0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.07e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.33 (95% CI [17.23, 19.44], t(61) = 32.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.39], t(61) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.95, 2.01], t(61) = 0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.73])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-2.07, 2.02], t(61) = -0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = -9.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.25 (95% CI [28.26, 32.24], t(61) = 29.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.94, 3.69], t(61) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.77, 95% CI [-0.75, 4.30], t(61) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.85])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.91, 95% CI [-5.40, 1.57], t(61) = -1.08, p = 0.282; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.33 (95% CI [11.55, 13.11], t(61) = 30.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.02], t(61) = -0.15, p = 0.882; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.37], t(61) = -1.22, p = 0.224; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.43, 2.24], t(61) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.58 (95% CI [16.34, 18.83], t(61) = 27.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.60, 1.93], t(61) = 0.19, p = 0.853; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-2.03, 1.20], t(61) = -0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.42, 3.04], t(61) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.96])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.20, 14.55], t(61) = 22.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.87], t(61) = 0.25, p = 0.806; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.98], t(61) = -0.11, p = 0.913; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.51, 95% CI [0.07, 2.95], t(61) = 2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.02, 0.97])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.87 (95% CI [9.97, 11.78], t(61) = 23.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.69, -0.14], t(61) = -2.18, p = 0.029; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.17, -0.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.98], t(61) = -0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.75, 95% CI [-0.30, 3.81], t(61) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.50 (95% CI [24.49, 32.51], t(61) = 13.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.17, 95% CI [-3.51, 7.84], t(61) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.79])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-4.23, 1.87], t(61) = -0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.58, 95% CI [-5.79, 2.62], t(61) = -0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.12 (95% CI [21.16, 25.09], t(61) = 23.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-3.65, 1.90], t(61) = -0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.37, 1.41], t(61) = -0.50, p = 0.618; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.34], t(61) = -0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.25 (95% CI [23.88, 28.62], t(61) = 21.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-3.97, 2.72], t(61) = -0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.55, 0.93], t(61) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-1.80, 4.38], t(61) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.74])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.54 (95% CI [16.79, 22.30], t(61) = 13.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.46, 95% CI [-1.44, 6.36], t(61) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.90])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.36, 95% CI [-0.25, 6.96], t(61) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.99])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.81, 95% CI [-7.80, 2.17], t(61) = -1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.13 (95% CI [9.68, 12.57], t(61) = 15.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.67], t(61) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-0.43, 2.75], t(61) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.76])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-3.85, 0.54], t(61) = -1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.21 (95% CI [13.03, 17.38], t(61) = 13.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-3.83, 2.33], t(61) = -0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.98, 4.32], t(61) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.78])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-4.66, 2.65], t(61) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.67 (95% CI [19.05, 24.29], t(61) = 16.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-2.75, 4.66], t(61) = 0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.99, 95% CI [-1.12, 5.10], t(61) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.77])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.97, 95% CI [-7.26, 1.33], t(61) = -1.35, p = 0.175; Std. beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.58 (95% CI [14.76, 18.41], t(61) = 17.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-2.08, 3.08], t(61) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.45, 2.95], t(61) = 0.67, p = 0.505; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.67])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-2.58, 3.49], t(61) = 0.30, p = 0.768; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.79])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.58 (95% CI [12.34, 14.82], t(61) = 21.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.59, 1.92], t(61) = 0.19, p = 0.852; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.86, 0.90], t(61) = -0.68, p = 0.497; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [-0.34, 3.47], t(61) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.67 (95% CI [15.48, 17.85], t(61) = 27.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.92, 2.42], t(61) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.26, 2.47], t(61) = 1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.80])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-2.29, 1.48], t(61) = -0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.21 (95% CI [10.95, 13.47], t(61) = 18.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.12, 3.45], t(61) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.05])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.82, 95% CI [0.37, 3.27], t(61) = 2.46, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.11, 0.99])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-3.13, 0.87], t(61) = -1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.88 (95% CI [26.65, 31.10], t(61) = 25.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.42, 95% CI [-0.74, 5.57], t(61) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.94])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.88, 95% CI [0.45, 5.31], t(61) = 2.32, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.08, 0.90])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-4.86, 1.85], t(61) = -0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.86e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.96 (95% CI [23.14, 30.78], t(61) = 13.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-5.19, 5.61], t(61) = 0.08, p = 0.940; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-1.73, 4.17], t(61) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-3.49, 4.66], t(61) = 0.28, p = 0.779; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.46 (95% CI [11.56, 15.36], t(61) = 13.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.52, 3.86], t(61) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.79])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [-0.39, 3.46], t(61) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.71])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-2.08, 3.23], t(61) = 0.43, p = 0.671; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.96 (95% CI [14.47, 17.44], t(61) = 21.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.02, 3.18], t(61) = 1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.84])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.55], t(61) = 1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.68])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-2.16, 1.92], t(61) = -0.12, p = 0.907; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.42 (95% CI [26.27, 32.57], t(61) = 18.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.25, 95% CI [-2.20, 6.70], t(61) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.83])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.51, 95% CI [-0.40, 5.42], t(61) = 1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.67])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-3.48, 4.54], t(61) = 0.26, p = 0.796; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.18) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.58 (95% CI [12.09, 13.07], t(61) = 50.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.53], t(61) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.74], t(61) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.95], t(61) = -0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.76])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.00 (95% CI [13.68, 16.32], t(61) = 22.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.03], t(61) = 0.18, p = 0.861; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-1.02, 3.09], t(61) = 0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.95])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.86, 1.81], t(61) = -0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.92 (95% CI [12.40, 15.43], t(61) = 17.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-2.73, 1.56], t(61) = -0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.31, 95% CI [-0.67, 3.30], t(61) = 1.29, p = 0.195; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.86])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-3.06, 2.43], t(61) = -0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.63])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.92 (95% CI [26.30, 31.53], t(61) = 21.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-4.11, 3.28], t(61) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.31, 95% CI [-1.34, 5.95], t(61) = 1.24, p = 0.215; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.91])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.33, 95% CI [-6.36, 3.71], t(61) = -0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.29e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.75 (95% CI [18.06, 21.44], t(61) = 22.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.15, 2.65], t(61) = 0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.91], t(61) = 1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.94, 1.40], t(61) = -0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.92 (95% CI [13.87, 15.96], t(61) = 27.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.31], t(61) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.82, 2.36], t(61) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.91])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-2.64, 1.76], t(61) = -0.39, p = 0.696; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.96 (95% CI [10.71, 13.20], t(61) = 18.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.58, 95% CI [-3.34, 0.18], t(61) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.05])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-3.08, -0.11], t(61) = -2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.99, 95% CI [-0.05, 4.03], t(61) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.04 (95% CI [8.42, 11.66], t(61) = 12.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-3.13, 1.46], t(61) = -0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.55], t(61) = -1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.82], t(61) = 0.35, p = 0.725; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.96 (95% CI [8.31, 11.61], t(61) = 11.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.29], t(61) = -0.87, p = 0.382; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-2.85, -0.16], t(61) = -2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.68, -0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.39, 3.32], t(61) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.79 (95% CI [6.15, 9.44], t(61) = 9.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.95, 2.70], t(61) = 0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.27], t(61) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.56])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.15, 95% CI [-3.17, 0.87], t(61) = -1.11, p = 0.265; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.79 (95% CI [23.24, 32.34], t(61) = 11.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-7.93, 4.93], t(61) = -0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-4.18, 1.79], t(61) = -0.79, p = 0.432; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-3.55, 4.67], t(61) = 0.27, p = 0.788; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

218.656

225.270

-106.328

212.656

recovery_stage_a

random

6

219.761

232.989

-103.880

207.761

4.895

3

0.180

recovery_stage_b

null

3

319.879

326.493

-156.940

313.879

recovery_stage_b

random

6

324.791

338.019

-156.395

312.791

1.089

3

0.780

ras_confidence

null

3

398.126

404.740

-196.063

392.126

ras_confidence

random

6

401.997

415.225

-194.999

389.997

2.129

3

0.546

ras_willingness

null

3

271.818

278.433

-132.909

265.818

ras_willingness

random

6

275.778

289.006

-131.889

263.778

2.040

3

0.564

ras_goal

null

3

334.845

341.459

-164.422

328.845

ras_goal

random

6

340.140

353.368

-164.070

328.140

0.705

3

0.872

ras_reliance

null

3

320.954

327.568

-157.477

314.954

ras_reliance

random

6

318.784

332.012

-153.392

306.784

8.170

3

0.043

ras_domination

null

3

304.229

310.843

-149.114

298.229

ras_domination

random

6

304.043

317.271

-146.022

292.043

6.186

3

0.103

symptom

null

3

475.836

482.450

-234.918

469.836

symptom

random

6

477.418

490.646

-232.709

465.418

4.418

3

0.220

slof_work

null

3

385.770

392.384

-189.885

379.770

slof_work

random

6

390.303

403.531

-189.151

378.303

1.467

3

0.690

slof_relationship

null

3

410.234

416.848

-202.117

404.234

slof_relationship

random

6

414.813

428.041

-201.407

402.813

1.420

3

0.701

satisfaction

null

3

445.219

451.833

-219.609

439.219

satisfaction

random

6

446.695

459.924

-217.348

434.695

4.523

3

0.210

mhc_emotional

null

3

350.888

357.502

-172.444

344.888

mhc_emotional

random

6

354.256

367.484

-171.128

342.256

2.632

3

0.452

mhc_social

null

3

408.749

415.363

-201.375

402.749

mhc_social

random

6

412.454

425.682

-200.227

400.454

2.295

3

0.513

mhc_psychological

null

3

432.665

439.280

-213.333

426.665

mhc_psychological

random

6

436.531

449.759

-212.266

424.531

2.134

3

0.545

resilisnce

null

3

384.675

391.289

-189.337

378.675

resilisnce

random

6

388.615

401.843

-188.308

376.615

2.060

3

0.560

social_provision

null

3

331.472

338.086

-162.736

325.472

social_provision

random

6

333.952

347.180

-160.976

321.952

3.520

3

0.318

els_value_living

null

3

327.378

333.992

-160.689

321.378

els_value_living

random

6

328.970

342.198

-158.485

316.970

4.408

3

0.221

els_life_fulfill

null

3

341.091

347.705

-167.545

335.091

els_life_fulfill

random

6

337.579

350.807

-162.790

325.579

9.511

3

0.023

els

null

3

414.378

420.992

-204.189

408.378

els

random

6

411.860

425.088

-199.930

399.860

8.518

3

0.036

social_connect

null

3

467.850

474.464

-230.925

461.850

social_connect

random

6

471.513

484.742

-229.757

459.513

2.336

3

0.506

shs_agency

null

3

390.187

396.801

-192.094

384.187

shs_agency

random

6

387.888

401.116

-187.944

375.888

8.299

3

0.040

shs_pathway

null

3

353.192

359.806

-173.596

347.192

shs_pathway

random

6

354.219

367.447

-171.110

342.219

4.972

3

0.174

shs

null

3

454.656

461.270

-224.328

448.656

shs

random

6

452.153

465.381

-220.077

440.153

8.503

3

0.037

esteem

null

3

224.570

231.184

-109.285

218.570

esteem

random

6

225.290

238.518

-106.645

213.290

5.281

3

0.152

mlq_search

null

3

348.403

355.018

-171.202

342.403

mlq_search

random

6

353.374

366.602

-170.687

341.374

1.030

3

0.794

mlq_presence

null

3

363.953

370.567

-178.977

357.953

mlq_presence

random

6

366.731

379.959

-177.365

354.731

3.223

3

0.359

mlq

null

3

437.766

444.380

-215.883

431.766

mlq

random

6

441.670

454.899

-214.835

429.670

2.096

3

0.553

empower

null

3

355.669

362.283

-174.835

349.669

empower

random

6

359.700

372.928

-173.850

347.700

1.969

3

0.579

ismi_resistance

null

3

316.908

323.522

-155.454

310.908

ismi_resistance

random

6

321.625

334.853

-154.813

309.625

1.283

3

0.733

ismi_discrimation

null

3

337.385

343.999

-165.692

331.385

ismi_discrimation

random

6

336.771

349.999

-162.386

324.771

6.613

3

0.085

sss_affective

null

3

348.212

354.826

-171.106

342.212

sss_affective

random

6

352.353

365.581

-170.176

340.353

1.859

3

0.602

sss_behavior

null

3

360.212

366.826

-177.106

354.212

sss_behavior

random

6

361.057

374.285

-174.529

349.057

5.155

3

0.161

sss_cognitive

null

3

359.308

365.922

-176.654

353.308

sss_cognitive

random

6

363.812

377.040

-175.906

351.812

1.496

3

0.683

sss

null

3

483.789

490.403

-238.895

477.789

sss

random

6

488.721

501.949

-238.360

476.721

1.068

3

0.785

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

24

3.25 ± 1.20

24

3.42 ± 1.20

0.633

-0.175

recovery_stage_a

2nd

9

4.04 ± 1.18

-0.828

10

3.82 ± 1.18

-0.420

0.684

0.233

recovery_stage_b

1st

24

18.33 ± 2.76

24

18.17 ± 2.76

0.835

0.098

recovery_stage_b

2nd

9

18.86 ± 2.45

-0.310

10

18.67 ± 2.47

-0.296

0.866

0.112

ras_confidence

1st

24

30.25 ± 4.98

24

31.12 ± 4.98

0.545

-0.303

ras_confidence

2nd

9

32.02 ± 4.29

-0.614

10

30.99 ± 4.34

0.048

0.603

0.360

ras_willingness

1st

24

12.33 ± 1.95

24

12.25 ± 1.95

0.883

0.076

ras_willingness

2nd

9

11.73 ± 1.67

0.544

10

12.56 ± 1.69

-0.279

0.288

-0.747

ras_goal

1st

24

17.58 ± 3.12

24

17.75 ± 3.12

0.854

-0.090

ras_goal

2nd

9

17.17 ± 2.72

0.224

10

18.14 ± 2.75

-0.213

0.440

-0.526

ras_reliance

1st

24

13.38 ± 2.94

24

13.58 ± 2.94

0.807

-0.180

ras_reliance

2nd

9

13.32 ± 2.20

0.050

10

15.03 ± 2.26

-1.252

0.098

-1.482

ras_domination

1st

24

10.87 ± 2.25

24

9.46 ± 2.25

0.033

0.788

ras_domination

2nd

9

10.37 ± 2.22

0.282

10

10.70 ± 2.22

-0.693

0.743

-0.187

symptom

1st

24

28.50 ± 10.03

24

30.67 ± 10.03

0.458

-0.645

symptom

2nd

9

27.32 ± 7.16

0.351

10

27.91 ± 7.39

0.822

0.861

-0.174

slof_work

1st

24

23.12 ± 4.90

24

22.25 ± 4.90

0.539

0.415

slof_work

2nd

9

22.64 ± 3.77

0.228

10

21.50 ± 3.86

0.356

0.516

0.543

slof_relationship

1st

24

26.25 ± 5.92

24

25.62 ± 5.92

0.716

0.251

slof_relationship

2nd

9

24.94 ± 4.52

0.525

10

25.61 ± 4.63

0.006

0.751

-0.268

satisfaction

1st

24

19.54 ± 6.89

24

22.00 ± 6.89

0.222

-0.593

satisfaction

2nd

9

22.90 ± 6.04

-0.809

10

22.54 ± 6.10

-0.131

0.899

0.085

mhc_emotional

1st

24

11.13 ± 3.62

24

11.75 ± 3.62

0.552

-0.349

mhc_emotional

2nd

9

12.29 ± 2.93

-0.650

10

11.26 ± 2.98

0.275

0.451

0.575

mhc_social

1st

24

15.21 ± 5.44

24

14.46 ± 5.44

0.635

0.249

mhc_social

2nd

9

16.88 ± 4.60

-0.554

10

15.13 ± 4.66

-0.221

0.413

0.582

mhc_psychological

1st

24

21.67 ± 6.55

24

22.62 ± 6.55

0.614

-0.272

mhc_psychological

2nd

9

23.66 ± 5.48

-0.564

10

21.65 ± 5.56

0.277

0.431

0.569

resilisnce

1st

24

16.58 ± 4.56

24

17.08 ± 4.56

0.706

-0.200

resilisnce

2nd

9

17.33 ± 3.84

-0.299

10

18.29 ± 3.90

-0.482

0.592

-0.383

social_provision

1st

24

13.58 ± 3.10

24

13.75 ± 3.10

0.853

-0.107

social_provision

2nd

9

13.10 ± 2.52

0.308

10

14.84 ± 2.56

-0.699

0.143

-1.114

els_value_living

1st

24

16.67 ± 2.96

24

17.42 ± 2.96

0.384

-0.485

els_value_living

2nd

9

17.77 ± 2.44

-0.713

10

18.11 ± 2.48

-0.450

0.762

-0.223

els_life_fulfill

1st

24

12.21 ± 3.16

24

13.87 ± 3.16

0.073

-1.017

els_life_fulfill

2nd

9

14.03 ± 2.60

-1.110

10

14.56 ± 2.64

-0.419

0.659

-0.326

els

1st

24

28.88 ± 5.57

24

31.29 ± 5.57

0.139

-0.884

els

2nd

9

31.75 ± 4.49

-1.053

10

32.67 ± 4.57

-0.503

0.663

-0.333

social_connect

1st

24

26.96 ± 9.55

24

27.17 ± 9.55

0.940

-0.064

social_connect

2nd

9

28.18 ± 6.85

-0.374

10

28.97 ± 7.06

-0.554

0.805

-0.243

shs_agency

1st

24

13.46 ± 4.75

24

14.62 ± 4.75

0.399

-0.542

shs_agency

2nd

9

15.00 ± 3.72

-0.714

10

16.74 ± 3.80

-0.982

0.317

-0.809

shs_pathway

1st

24

15.96 ± 3.71

24

17.04 ± 3.71

0.317

-0.656

shs_pathway

2nd

9

17.03 ± 2.89

-0.649

10

17.99 ± 2.95

-0.575

0.476

-0.582

shs

1st

24

29.42 ± 7.87

24

31.67 ± 7.87

0.327

-0.695

shs

2nd

9

31.93 ± 5.96

-0.776

10

34.71 ± 6.11

-0.940

0.320

-0.859

esteem

1st

24

12.58 ± 1.23

24

12.42 ± 1.23

0.640

0.145

esteem

2nd

9

13.42 ± 1.27

-0.727

10

12.95 ± 1.26

-0.464

0.422

0.408

mlq_search

1st

24

15.00 ± 3.29

24

15.17 ± 3.29

0.861

-0.068

mlq_search

2nd

9

16.03 ± 3.15

-0.423

10

15.17 ± 3.16

-0.003

0.556

0.352

mlq_presence

1st

24

13.92 ± 3.79

24

13.33 ± 3.79

0.596

0.256

mlq_presence

2nd

9

15.23 ± 3.32

-0.575

10

14.33 ± 3.36

-0.437

0.561

0.393

mlq

1st

24

28.92 ± 6.53

24

28.50 ± 6.53

0.826

0.098

mlq

2nd

9

31.23 ± 5.91

-0.545

10

29.48 ± 5.95

-0.232

0.524

0.412

empower

1st

24

19.75 ± 4.24

24

20.00 ± 4.24

0.839

-0.188

empower

2nd

9

20.45 ± 2.98

-0.526

10

20.43 ± 3.08

-0.323

0.988

0.015

ismi_resistance

1st

24

14.92 ± 2.61

24

14.75 ± 2.61

0.826

0.089

ismi_resistance

2nd

9

15.69 ± 2.47

-0.410

10

15.08 ± 2.48

-0.177

0.597

0.322

ismi_discrimation

1st

24

11.96 ± 3.11

24

10.38 ± 3.11

0.084

0.942

ismi_discrimation

2nd

9

10.36 ± 2.60

0.949

10

10.77 ± 2.64

-0.235

0.737

-0.242

sss_affective

1st

24

10.04 ± 4.05

24

9.21 ± 4.05

0.480

0.679

sss_affective

2nd

9

9.47 ± 2.82

0.464

10

8.92 ± 2.92

0.238

0.675

0.453

sss_behavior

1st

24

9.96 ± 4.13

24

8.92 ± 4.13

0.386

0.701

sss_behavior

2nd

9

8.45 ± 3.00

1.015

10

8.88 ± 3.09

0.028

0.763

-0.286

sss_cognitive

1st

24

7.79 ± 4.11

24

8.17 ± 4.11

0.753

-0.231

sss_cognitive

2nd

9

8.60 ± 3.08

-0.497

10

7.83 ± 3.16

0.210

0.591

0.476

sss

1st

24

27.79 ± 11.37

24

26.29 ± 11.37

0.650

0.459

sss

2nd

9

26.60 ± 7.84

0.366

10

25.66 ± 8.12

0.193

0.799

0.287

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(58.92) = 0.48, p = 0.633, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.86)

2st

t(58.03) = -0.41, p = 0.684, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.86)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(53.65) = -0.21, p = 0.835, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.43)

2st

t(56.57) = -0.17, p = 0.866, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.45 to 2.07)

ras_confidence

1st

t(52.61) = 0.61, p = 0.545, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.76)

2st

t(57.27) = -0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-5.01 to 2.93)

ras_willingness

1st

t(52.24) = -0.15, p = 0.883, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.05)

2st

t(57.61) = 1.07, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.37)

ras_goal

1st

t(52.99) = 0.19, p = 0.854, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.97)

2st

t(56.97) = 0.78, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.54 to 3.49)

ras_reliance

1st

t(48.83) = 0.25, p = 0.807, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.92)

2st

t(62.70) = 1.68, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -1.48, 95% CI (-0.33 to 3.76)

ras_domination

1st

t(59.06) = -2.18, p = 0.033, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-2.72 to -0.12)

2st

t(58.16) = 0.33, p = 0.743, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.38)

symptom

1st

t(48.01) = 0.75, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-3.65 to 7.99)

2st

t(62.84) = 0.18, p = 0.861, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-6.09 to 7.26)

slof_work

1st

t(49.42) = -0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.72 to 1.97)

2st

t(61.86) = -0.65, p = 0.516, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-4.65 to 2.36)

slof_relationship

1st

t(49.28) = -0.37, p = 0.716, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-4.06 to 2.81)

2st

t(62.10) = 0.32, p = 0.751, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-3.53 to 4.87)

satisfaction

1st

t(53.17) = 1.24, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-1.53 to 6.45)

2st

t(56.84) = -0.13, p = 0.899, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-5.93 to 5.23)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(50.64) = 0.60, p = 0.552, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.72)

2st

t(59.77) = -0.76, p = 0.451, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-3.74 to 1.68)

mhc_social

1st

t(51.98) = -0.48, p = 0.635, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-3.90 to 2.40)

2st

t(57.90) = -0.82, p = 0.413, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-6.01 to 2.50)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(51.61) = 0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.84 to 4.75)

2st

t(58.34) = -0.79, p = 0.431, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-7.08 to 3.06)

resilisnce

1st

t(51.82) = 0.38, p = 0.706, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.14 to 3.14)

2st

t(58.08) = 0.54, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-2.60 to 4.52)

social_provision

1st

t(50.80) = 0.19, p = 0.853, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.96)

2st

t(59.51) = 1.48, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -1.11, 95% CI (-0.60 to 4.07)

els_value_living

1st

t(51.25) = 0.88, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.96 to 2.46)

2st

t(58.84) = 0.30, p = 0.762, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.92 to 2.61)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(51.17) = 1.83, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (-0.16 to 3.50)

2st

t(58.95) = 0.44, p = 0.659, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.88 to 2.94)

els

1st

t(50.57) = 1.50, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.81 to 5.65)

2st

t(59.90) = 0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-3.25 to 5.08)

social_connect

1st

t(48.09) = 0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-5.33 to 5.75)

2st

t(62.91) = 0.25, p = 0.805, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-5.59 to 7.18)

shs_agency

1st

t(49.84) = 0.85, p = 0.399, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.92)

2st

t(61.15) = 1.01, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-1.71 to 5.20)

shs_pathway

1st

t(49.69) = 1.01, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.07 to 3.24)

2st

t(61.41) = 0.72, p = 0.476, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.64)

shs

1st

t(49.11) = 0.99, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-2.32 to 6.82)

2st

t(62.35) = 1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-2.76 to 8.32)

esteem

1st

t(62.50) = -0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.54)

2st

t(62.25) = -0.81, p = 0.422, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.63 to 0.69)

mlq_search

1st

t(57.28) = 0.18, p = 0.861, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.07)

2st

t(56.87) = -0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-3.76 to 2.05)

mlq_presence

1st

t(53.17) = -0.53, p = 0.596, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.78 to 1.61)

2st

t(56.85) = -0.58, p = 0.561, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-3.97 to 2.18)

mlq

1st

t(54.44) = -0.22, p = 0.826, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-4.20 to 3.36)

2st

t(56.31) = -0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-7.20 to 3.71)

empower

1st

t(47.76) = 0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.21 to 2.71)

2st

t(62.42) = -0.01, p = 0.988, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.80 to 2.76)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(56.60) = -0.22, p = 0.826, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.68 to 1.34)

2st

t(56.55) = -0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.88 to 1.67)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(51.66) = -1.76, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-3.38 to 0.22)

2st

t(58.28) = 0.34, p = 0.737, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.00 to 2.82)

sss_affective

1st

t(47.63) = -0.71, p = 0.480, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-3.19 to 1.52)

2st

t(62.07) = -0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-3.19 to 2.08)

sss_behavior

1st

t(48.34) = -0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-3.44 to 1.35)

2st

t(63.00) = 0.30, p = 0.763, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-2.37 to 3.22)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(48.86) = 0.32, p = 0.753, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.01 to 2.76)

2st

t(62.67) = -0.54, p = 0.591, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-3.63 to 2.09)

sss

1st

t(47.46) = -0.46, p = 0.650, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-8.10 to 5.10)

2st

t(61.47) = -0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-8.26 to 6.39)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(27.47) = 1.02, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.21)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(22.20) = 0.69, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.01 to 2.02)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(21.37) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.72 to 2.44)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(21.10) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.30)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(21.67) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.05)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(18.73) = 2.85, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (0.38 to 2.52)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(27.65) = 1.68, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.77)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(18.21) = -1.86, p = 0.159, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-5.88 to 0.36)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(19.12) = -0.81, p = 0.854, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.69 to 1.18)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(19.02) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-2.31 to 2.28)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(21.81) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-3.15 to 4.24)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(19.94) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.12 to 1.13)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(20.90) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-2.04 to 3.38)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(20.63) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-4.16 to 2.21)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(20.78) = 1.11, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.05 to 3.46)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(20.05) = 1.61, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.50)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(20.37) = 1.04, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.09)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(20.31) = 0.97, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.80 to 2.17)

els

1st vs 2st

t(19.89) = 1.15, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.11 to 3.86)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(18.26) = 1.25, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.22 to 4.82)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(19.40) = 2.24, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.14 to 4.09)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(19.29) = 1.31, p = 0.409, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.46)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(18.91) = 2.14, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (0.06 to 6.02)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(34.51) = 1.17, p = 0.497, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.46)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(25.55) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.09 to 2.11)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(21.81) = 1.02, p = 0.640, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.04 to 3.03)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(22.85) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.75 to 4.71)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(18.06) = 0.73, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.67)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(24.85) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.96)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(20.67) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.12 to 1.91)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(17.98) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.85)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(18.42) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.33)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(18.75) = -0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.84 to 1.16)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(17.87) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.68 to 2.42)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(28.47) = 1.91, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.63)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(22.64) = 0.69, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.12)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(21.74) = 1.36, p = 0.378, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.94 to 4.49)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(21.44) = -1.20, p = 0.488, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-1.64 to 0.44)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(22.06) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-2.15 to 1.32)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(18.86) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.06)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(28.68) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.10 to 1.08)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(18.31) = -0.75, p = 0.921, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-4.46 to 2.10)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(19.28) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.52 to 1.55)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(19.18) = -1.14, p = 0.540, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-3.72 to 1.10)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(22.22) = 1.79, p = 0.173, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.52 to 7.24)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(20.18) = 1.42, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.87)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(21.22) = 1.22, p = 0.472, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.18 to 4.52)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(20.93) = 1.24, p = 0.460, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.36 to 5.33)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(21.09) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.11)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(20.30) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.96 to 1.01)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(20.64) = 1.56, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.57)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(20.58) = 2.43, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -1.11, 95% CI (0.26 to 3.38)

els

1st vs 2st

t(20.12) = 2.30, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (0.27 to 5.49)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(18.36) = 0.80, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.96 to 4.40)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(19.58) = 1.55, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.53 to 3.61)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(19.47) = 1.41, p = 0.350, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.66)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(19.06) = 1.68, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.62 to 5.64)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(36.32) = 1.76, p = 0.173, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.80)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(26.34) = 0.96, p = 0.687, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.17 to 3.24)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(22.21) = 1.27, p = 0.432, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.82 to 3.45)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(23.36) = 1.22, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.61 to 6.23)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(18.14) = 1.13, p = 0.548, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.01)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(25.57) = 0.93, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.48)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(20.97) = -2.08, p = 0.100, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-3.19 to -0.00)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(18.05) = -0.99, p = 0.666, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-1.77 to 0.63)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(18.53) = -2.18, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 1.01, 95% CI (-2.95 to -0.06)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(18.88) = 1.07, p = 0.594, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.38)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(17.94) = -0.78, p = 0.888, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-4.40 to 2.01)

Plot

Clinical significance